From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30518 invoked by alias); 20 Jul 2012 16:30:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 30492 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Jul 2012 16:30:36 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 16:30:24 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q6KGUO82015085 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:30:24 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q6KGUMg0008549 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 20 Jul 2012 12:30:23 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] clean up allocation of bfd filenames References: <87r4s83lu5.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20120719185134.GA16054@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87394nxya6.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 16:30:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <87394nxya6.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> (Tom Tromey's message of "Thu, 19 Jul 2012 14:59:29 -0600") Message-ID: <87629iwg2p.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-07/txt/msg00398.txt.bz2 Jan> Would not it be worth propose this bfd filename memory storage Jan> globally in bfd/ ? Tom> I went back and forth on this. Tom> I think it would probably be better in general, but I wasn't too Tom> enthused about auditing a lot of code that I don't know well to make the Tom> change globally. I remembered the argument that made me decide to do it in gdb. BFD made a choice, long ago, to have clients manage the memory for the filename. My patch just changes one client to handle it in a uniform way. Changing other clients, or changing the library itself, might make sense -- but it might not, and I don't really know anything about some of these clients, like 'ld'. So I figured it was ok to leave things in this state. Tom